Legendary Metal Library Found in Tayos Cave in Ecuador

[baystater]

Pyramids, Ziggurats, Mounds - Crystalinks

Hopefully this page leads to the correct information.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks that's quite intriguing. I note that the the supposed underwater monumental structure near Japan has been identified as a rock outcrop, though some features look definitely artificial, rock can split or erode in quite artificial - looking ways.

I looked at the Ecuador pyramid - mounds which are fine. If they'd been found at Sipan or Tucume, there would be no comment. The Greek pyramids are curious. The in fact look like early classic structures and not even like the monumental bronze -age city -walls of the Mykeneans. et some potter was dated to the 2nd millennium. That just looks wrong and would need to be confirmed - the pottery type identified rather than dated by photoluminescence to be sure we were at least in the right ballpark.

So and interesting roundup of the odd stone structures many of which I was not aware of, but we have to be cautious. Re the Peruvian structures, it is ok, but does tend towards the Oooh Wow..mysterious approach. They picked the Huallamarca temple in Lima -one of many -because it has been restored - I was there while they were working on it -and they picked the 'lost' city of Paiti. Well, they knew it was there but it took some time to find but 'lost makes it sound Mysterious so they pick that rather than Pachacamac or the Temples at Trujilllo which are too familiar to tourists, I suppose. Useful site but look further.

P.s I been looking at the Crespi collection and some like the pots look not unlike Moche pots which can get odd shapes but some of those plaques look very fishy indeed. I am not making any accusations about him, but the collection looks doubtful. When In Lima I saw a Museum of some colonial art and also a gallery of pots and figurines and they did not look kosher to me nor to the archaeologist who was with me. The was a scandal about faked gold artefacts in one of the museums and of course The Ica stones have got to be fakes (as admitted) despite the Late C34's ongoing defence of them. The Acambara dino models also sound fishy as to the excavation site which produced in that one place, figurines in perfect condition without any damage or even wear. Just what the visiting collector was interested in obtaining. Rifleman may be persuaded to repeat his work on the dating of the objects. I can't rule out that the good pastor had the wool pulled over his eyes.

Over the years, Crespi had accumulated a vast collection of metal plates, which had been brought to him by the locals. The plates displayed various images, and strongly suggested that the real history of the region was far more interesting than the archaeologists claimed. To them, “of course”, the artifacts in Crespi’s possession, were all fakes.

http://www.philipcoppens.com/crespi.html

The article makes efforts to argue that it was possible to make them or whatever. Perhaps so. Fact remains that this stuff was brought to him by the locals and look all wrong. So do his Babylonian carvings. They look like inexpert copies of known artifacts I recall from seeing in European collections.

And just look at this lot.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ar...va_tayos02.htm

Particularly the Egyptian in Parthian trousers with a bishop's hat in classic greek drapes and a rather Hindu face. It looks totally wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

I gota mention -the last link and top two first images, they are copies of Assyrian carvings, the first from the gate at Nineveh and the other a bas relief from the palace wall. The musculature of the lower leg is typical Assyrian artwork.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

The pyramid is as the Egyptian pyramids look today. In ancient times the pyramids were smooth. It was in later times the outer smooth limestone layers were removed to be used as building material.

That is true only for the Great Pyramid and for no others, regardless of their location on Earth.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

While there are very many ancient pyramids in Mezzo America none resemble the Egyptian ones to the extent of the Egyptian style in the image.

No relevant. It is illogical to assume that all pyramids served the same purpose or function.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

It would have seemed more authenticate if the pyramid was shown smooth as it is not common knowledge they were in ancient times.

Again, that is only true of the Great Pyramid, and not others.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

While the Step pyramid of Djoser does have more resemblance to the Mezzo American pyramids note closely it has no steps for climbing to the top as the American ones have.

Again, it is illogical to assume that all pyramids were constructed for the same purpose.

It is logical for ziggurats in Mesopotamia to have steps, since they were used as astronomical observatories. It is also logical for pyramids in Meso-America to have steps, since they too were used as astronomical observatories.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

The Egyptian ones were sealed tombs...

That is a patently false statement, and it shows the destructiveness of religion, in particular christianity. Christians misinterpret everything through christianity, and so these lies are nearly impossible to get rid of.

No pyramid was ever used as a tomb.
No pharaoh was ever found in a pyramid.
There is no evidence that pharaohs "lied in state" in a pyramid before being interred elsewhere.
Every pharaoh has been accounted.

To prove the "pyramids as tombs" nonsense, both of the following must happen:

1] We must find a previously undiscovered/unknown pyramid; and

2] It must contain the body of a pharaoh not previously known in Egyptian history.

The "pyramids-as-tombs" lie also stems from the fraudulent actions of a fame-fortune seeker.

The claim was that the mummified partial remains of Pharaoh Men-ka-ra and his sarcophagus were found in the 3rd Pyramid at Gizeh. The claim was based on the "fact" that the cartouche of Men-ka-ra appeared in red ochre paint on both (how fortunate).

It was more than 150 years later, in the 1960s, when the British Museum at St Pacras/King's Cross got around to dating the finds. Dating revealed that the sarcophagus was from the Saitic Period and that the mummy was from the Early Christian Period.

In other words, the mummy was an "intrusive burial" sort of like a college prank, where someone dies and has convinced their family/friends to secret them away in one of the pyramids.

So pyramids are not tombs.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

..., the American ones were points of worship with a sacrificail alter on top

That's only true for the very later stages of Meso-American civilizations.

The pyramids were not constructed as places of worship or sacrificial altars, however after centuries they came to be used that way.

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

...but if that image had been used, it would have given more credibility to the plate. Most people that have not visited Egypt seem to be aware of only the 3 Great pyramids as they look today

The Egyptians never built The Pyramids, but they did attempt to copy them.

The Great Pyramid and the two smaller pyramids were built in the pre-dynastic period long before the people -- whoever they might have been --- came to Egypt.

The proof of that Djoser's pryamid.



It took archaeologists a while to figure that the rubble around the base of the pyramid was actually mud-baked bricks.

Archaeologists then reasoned that someone had built a step-pyramid, and then layered it with mud-baked bricks to make it look like a real pyramid. However, archaeologists were baffled by the fact that the bricks had all been white-washed -- painted white.

It wasn't until a study published in the Journal of Photometrics revealed the reason.

We know the Great Pyramid was covered to have a smooth appearance. We know that it was covered with limestone. We also know that it was not covered with just any old limestone, rather it was covered with White Tura Limestone and we know exactly where it came from.

When working with limestone, run water over it, and using any metamorphic rock (granite, gneiss, quartz etc), rub the limestone. That will polish the limestone and make it smooth like it is glass. When you do that with White Tura Limestone, it has an high albedo -- very white and shiny.

So, do like the Journal of Photometrics did.

Construct a computer model of the Great Pyramid; make the outside white; and give it the correct albedo as measured from polished White Tura Limestone, and then....

...pretend a New Moon is sitting overhead.

The light from the New Moon would have reflected off of the White Tura Limestone. You could see the Great Pyramid at distances of about 30 miles. Had you been over the horizon and not able to see the actual pyramid, you would have seen the glow from the Great Pyramid in exactly the same way you see the glow from city-lights at night from a distance, except you could have been 70-80 miles away.

But that's not what I wanted to tell you. Had you been in space flying over the North or South American continents, you could have seen the Great Pyramid of Gizeh during a New Moon at night.

What is the obvious conclusion?

The Great Pyramid already existed before Djoser started building his pyramid.

Djoser tried to copy the magnificent Great Pyramid, but he didn't know how, so he did the best he could, which is building a step-pyramid, and then covering the step-pyramid with mud-baked bricks that had been painted white....to look like the Great Pyramid.

When I was in Egypt, I would have liked to have seen the Great Pyramids, but I didn't get anywhere near Gizeh, except I did get to Abu-Rashid, where I saw the pyramid of Khufu's son, Ra-de-def.

That, of course, begs the question, if Khufu truly did build his pyramid, then why did his son go 90 miles north of Gizeh to build his? I mean, after all, there was still plenty of room on the Gizeh Plateau for two more pyramids.

It also begs the question, why does Ra-de-def's little junky pyramid look like it was built by by 3-year olds at day-care, and why is it falling apart? What, the same people who built Khufu's pyramid suddenly forgot how to build pyramids?

Anyway, if one desires a solunar astronomical observatory, then a step-pyramid is the way to go, so I don't think it conclusively proves any link between Mesopotamia and Meso-America. Quite obviously, the pyramids in Egypt were not used for solunar astronomical observations, and in fact, the Egyptians had no clue why the Great Pyramid even existed -- which is evidenced further by the fact that the Great Pyramid has features that all other pyramids are lacking.

Archaeologically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Damn! This has been pending since the 1970s? You are right. Woodrow. While the Step pyramids and the Classic Toltec, Maya and Aztec pyramids (and the Ziggurats, for that matter) have the same shape they are not related and in fact the step pyramid was a transitional form to the slope -sided pyramid in a short time. In fact the construction of the terraced Mesoamerican temple is related more to the Ziggurat because it has the same structural and access -use advantages, but the American temples are long after the pyramids and the Ziggurats. The Toltecs were 800 CE and after. The last ziggurats went into disuse in the late Roman - early Parthian period. C 500 AD

Well, again that has to do with the intended use. The ziggurats and Meso-American step-pyramids were intended to be used as solunar astronomical observatories.

Astronomically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

But if it was discovered in Ecuador, why would it be a pre-Colombian Meso-American architectural style rather then a pre-Colombian Peruvian style? Stylistically the Inca, who were in Ecuador were different then the Maya, Aztec and Toltec in Mexico and Central America. If anything the masterpieces of South America remind me far more of the massive terrace style of Java, India, and East Asia then they do of Pyramids.

Uh, you just impressed the hell out of me. I'm not a student of art history or architecture, but what I can tell you is that everything you know of pre-history is wrong.

The so-called Land Bridge never existed. People were here in the Americas long before the land-bridge-that-never-existed-theoretically-existed.

It kills me that I can't remember her name, but she was digging in northern Chile and carbon-dated a village to 32,000-30,000 BCE. That, naturally, posed a threat to the land-bridge nazis, who then proceeded to black-ball her and kick her out of university. She ended up teaching a a private school somewhere in Pennsylvania (I think).

The really sad thing is that in the early 1990s, shortly after she died, another group reviewed her work, and using two other dating-methods proved her wrong -- it was actually 35,000-32,000 BCE. So she didn't live to see herself vindicated and laugh in the face of the land-bridge-jerks.

Anyway, the Americas (North and South) were peopled by Australoids, you know, the aboriginoids from Australia and the areas you mentioned; and by peoples from South East Asia (like Chams, Nung, Montngards et al); and by Negroid and Caucasoid peoples.

The oldest skeletal remains are 24,500 BCE, and DNA proves it is a Negroid woman, probably from West Central Africa (her remains were found in a cave in Brasil).

And yes, also by tribal groups from northern Siberian region.

There is terracing in Africa, but here's the thing: it's Asian.

The Gujurats in India took Indonesians, Javanese et al as slaves and sailed to Africa where they traded the Indonesian/Javanese slaves to African tribes for other African slaves, and then the African slaves were taken to Indonesia/Java. It was the Indonesia/Javanese slaves that terraced the mountains to grow rice --- which US corporations have plowed under and now grow coffee and chocolate -- because, you know, that's better than rice, right?

Also don't forget the similarity between Easter Island script and the paleo-Hindu/Dravidian script.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if peoples from that zone, Australia-Java/Indonesia/Thailand came to the Americas (by boat) 30,000 years ago. For those wondering why they would live in a desert in northern Chile, well, it's a desert now, but it wasn't a desert 30,000 years ago during the last Ice Age.

Also, depending on the source you cite, the sea levels were 600 to 800 feet lower than they are today, so the oceans looked very different than they do now. It would have been very easy to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific, due to the fact that many land masses existed where none are now.

Pre-historically...

Mircea

[Chango]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

My first reaction was 'Damn' - fantastic!' What is this stuff?

Then I looked at the pictures and me heart sank. I am going to stick my neck out and say 'Fake'.

How do I know? How does an antiquary know a vase is fake? Experience.

Naw. South Americans would NEVER fake artifacts. They are far to primitive to engage in hoaxes.

Seriously though, those "ancient plates" look like vintage early 21st century hispanic gang graffiti to my eyes !

Danite, if you want spin mesoamerican archaeology into Book of Mormon proof "ancient aliens" style, at least pick something actually mysterious, like Puma Punku or the Fuente Magna bowl...

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That is true only for the Great Pyramid and for no others, regardless of their location on Earth.



No relevant. It is illogical to assume that all pyramids served the same purpose or function.



Again, that is only true of the Great Pyramid, and not others.



Again, it is illogical to assume that all pyramids were constructed for the same purpose.

It is logical for ziggurats in Mesopotamia to have steps, since they were used as astronomical observatories. It is also logical for pyramids in Meso-America to have steps, since they too were used as astronomical observatories.



That is a patently false statement, and it shows the destructiveness of religion, in particular christianity. Christians misinterpret everything through christianity, and so these lies are nearly impossible to get rid of.

No pyramid was ever used as a tomb.
No pharaoh was ever found in a pyramid.
There is no evidence that pharaohs "lied in state" in a pyramid before being interred elsewhere.
Every pharaoh has been accounted.

To prove the "pyramids as tombs" nonsense, both of the following must happen:

1] We must find a previously undiscovered/unknown pyramid; and

2] It must contain the body of a pharaoh not previously known in Egyptian history.

The "pyramids-as-tombs" lie also stems from the fraudulent actions of a fame-fortune seeker.

The claim was that the mummified partial remains of Pharaoh Men-ka-ra and his sarcophagus were found in the 3rd Pyramid at Gizeh. The claim was based on the "fact" that the cartouche of Men-ka-ra appeared in red ochre paint on both (how fortunate).

It was more than 150 years later, in the 1960s, when the British Museum at St Pacras/King's Cross got around to dating the finds. Dating revealed that the sarcophagus was from the Saitic Period and that the mummy was from the Early Christian Period.

In other words, the mummy was an "intrusive burial" sort of like a college prank, where someone dies and has convinced their family/friends to secret them away in one of the pyramids.

So pyramids are not tombs.



That's only true for the very later stages of Meso-American civilizations.

The pyramids were not constructed as places of worship or sacrificial altars, however after centuries they came to be used that way.



The Egyptians never built The Pyramids, but they did attempt to copy them.

The Great Pyramid and the two smaller pyramids were built in the pre-dynastic period long before the people -- whoever they might have been --- came to Egypt.

The proof of that Djoser's pryamid.



It took archaeologists a while to figure that the rubble around the base of the pyramid was actually mud-baked bricks.

Archaeologists then reasoned that someone had built a step-pyramid, and then layered it with mud-baked bricks to make it look like a real pyramid. However, archaeologists were baffled by the fact that the bricks had all been white-washed -- painted white.

It wasn't until a study published in the Journal of Photometrics revealed the reason.

We know the Great Pyramid was covered to have a smooth appearance. We know that it was covered with limestone. We also know that it was not covered with just any old limestone, rather it was covered with White Tura Limestone and we know exactly where it came from.

When working with limestone, run water over it, and using any metamorphic rock (granite, gneiss, quartz etc), rub the limestone. That will polish the limestone and make it smooth like it is glass. When you do that with White Tura Limestone, it has an high albedo -- very white and shiny.

So, do like the Journal of Photometrics did.

Construct a computer model of the Great Pyramid; make the outside white; and give it the correct albedo as measured from polished White Tura Limestone, and then....

...pretend a New Moon is sitting overhead.

The light from the New Moon would have reflected off of the White Tura Limestone. You could see the Great Pyramid at distances of about 30 miles. Had you been over the horizon and not able to see the actual pyramid, you would have seen the glow from the Great Pyramid in exactly the same way you see the glow from city-lights at night from a distance, except you could have been 70-80 miles away.

But that's not what I wanted to tell you. Had you been in space flying over the North or South American continents, you could have seen the Great Pyramid of Gizeh during a New Moon at night.

What is the obvious conclusion?

The Great Pyramid already existed before Djoser started building his pyramid.

Djoser tried to copy the magnificent Great Pyramid, but he didn't know how, so he did the best he could, which is building a step-pyramid, and then covering the step-pyramid with mud-baked bricks that had been painted white....to look like the Great Pyramid.

When I was in Egypt, I would have liked to have seen the Great Pyramids, but I didn't get anywhere near Gizeh, except I did get to Abu-Rashid, where I saw the pyramid of Khufu's son, Ra-de-def.

That, of course, begs the question, if Khufu truly did build his pyramid, then why did his son go 90 miles north of Gizeh to build his? I mean, after all, there was still plenty of room on the Gizeh Plateau for two more pyramids.

It also begs the question, why does Ra-de-def's little junky pyramid look like it was built by by 3-year olds at day-care, and why is it falling apart? What, the same people who built Khufu's pyramid suddenly forgot how to build pyramids?

Anyway, if one desires a solunar astronomical observatory, then a step-pyramid is the way to go, so I don't think it conclusively proves any link between Mesopotamia and Meso-America. Quite obviously, the pyramids in Egypt were not used for solunar astronomical observations, and in fact, the Egyptians had no clue why the Great Pyramid even existed -- which is evidenced further by the fact that the Great Pyramid has features that all other pyramids are lacking.

Archaeologically...

Mircea



Well, again that has to do with the intended use. The ziggurats and Meso-American step-pyramids were intended to be used as solunar astronomical observatories.

Astronomically...

Mircea



Uh, you just impressed the hell out of me. I'm not a student of art history or architecture, but what I can tell you is that everything you know of pre-history is wrong.

The so-called Land Bridge never existed. People were here in the Americas long before the land-bridge-that-never-existed-theoretically-existed.

It kills me that I can't remember her name, but she was digging in northern Chile and carbon-dated a village to 32,000-30,000 BCE. That, naturally, posed a threat to the land-bridge nazis, who then proceeded to black-ball her and kick her out of university. She ended up teaching a a private school somewhere in Pennsylvania (I think).

The really sad thing is that in the early 1990s, shortly after she died, another group reviewed her work, and using two other dating-methods proved her wrong -- it was actually 35,000-32,000 BCE. So she didn't live to see herself vindicated and laugh in the face of the land-bridge-jerks.

Anyway, the Americas (North and South) were peopled by Australoids, you know, the aboriginoids from Australia and the areas you mentioned; and by peoples from South East Asia (like Chams, Nung, Montngards et al); and by Negroid and Caucasoid peoples.

The oldest skeletal remains are 24,500 BCE, and DNA proves it is a Negroid woman, probably from West Central Africa (her remains were found in a cave in Brasil).

And yes, also by tribal groups from northern Siberian region.

There is terracing in Africa, but here's the thing: it's Asian.

The Gujurats in India took Indonesians, Javanese et al as slaves and sailed to Africa where they traded the Indonesian/Javanese slaves to African tribes for other African slaves, and then the African slaves were taken to Indonesia/Java. It was the Indonesia/Javanese slaves that terraced the mountains to grow rice --- which US corporations have plowed under and now grow coffee and chocolate -- because, you know, that's better than rice, right?

Also don't forget the similarity between Easter Island script and the paleo-Hindu/Dravidian script.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if peoples from that zone, Australia-Java/Indonesia/Thailand came to the Americas (by boat) 30,000 years ago. For those wondering why they would live in a desert in northern Chile, well, it's a desert now, but it wasn't a desert 30,000 years ago during the last Ice Age.

Also, depending on the source you cite, the sea levels were 600 to 800 feet lower than they are today, so the oceans looked very different than they do now. It would have been very easy to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific, due to the fact that many land masses existed where none are now.

Pre-historically...

Mircea

Great post. Very informative.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok right pyramid. Both the Step pyramid and the one at Meidum were of stone and encased in white limestone, not painted mudbrick. Or so I read. The evidence seems to suggest that they were earlier structures developing from the flat tomb through the superimposed tomb to the final integrated pyramid which remained the standard model until the end of the Old kingdom and kings had the cheaper buried tomb chambers under natural rock outcrops rather than having to build pyramids over them. I see nothing to support the thesis that all these predated Djosers' step pyramid or, even more unlikely, that they predated it, there were experiments with forms that did not work so well and then back to the perfectly good Gizeh type -pyramid, of which there are more than those three examples.

However, I do hope this is not going to turn into another alternative pyramid - theory thread, though I doubt that we are going to get much more on Tayos and that poor old sod with his collection of fakes other than increasing doubts.

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Ok right pyramid. Both the Step pyramid and the one at Meidum were of stone and encased in white limestone, not painted mudbrick. Or so I read. The evidence seems to suggest that they were earlier structures developing from the flat tomb through the superimposed tomb to the final integrated pyramid which remained the standard model until the end of the Old kingdom and kings had the cheaper buried tomb chambers under natural rock outcrops rather than having to build pyramids over them. I see nothing to support the thesis that all these predated Djosers' step pyramid or, even more unlikely, that they predated it, there were experiments with forms that did not work so well and then back to the perfectly good Gizeh type -pyramid, of which there are more than those three examples.

However, I do hope this is not going to turn into another alternative pyramid - theory thread, though I doubt that we are going to get much more on Tayos and that poor old sod with his collection of fakes other than increasing doubts.

Why? If we are all on the search for truth, what's it to you if alternative theories are discussed?
Oh yes! Let's hurriedly get back to the fascinating discussion of how we are all simply worm food with no purpose.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by gabfest

Why? If we are all on the search for truth, what's it to you if alternative theories are discussed?

I love alternative theories. Thinking outside the Box is how we come up with new discoveries. But Discussion does not mean posting claims and whining when somebody queries them.

Oh yes! Let's hurriedly get back to the fascinating discussion of how we are all simply worm food with no purpose.

That is not the topic. The topic is the Tayos plates and the crafty looking old priest (I wouldn't hire him as a babysitter ) and his collection of fakes produced to sell to gullible tourists.